Sinn Féin with Karl Marx

by Cael - Sinn Féin Sat Mar 08, 2008 15:22

Anyone wanting to jump into this debate could do worse than reading Marx's views on Private Property and Communism at this link:

by Living in 2008 Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:12

Well, Cael, as most of us here have been without property for centuries, many of us are now experimenting at being enslaved by it, including the computer I am looking at.

Marx was right to say:
"(5) A being only considers himself independent when he stands on his own feet; and he only stands on his own feet when he owes his existence to himself. A man who lives by the grace of another regards himself as a dependent being. But I live completely by the grace of another if I owe him not only the maintenance of my life, but if he has, moreover, created my life – if he is the source of my life."

The problem is that communism as practised in the last 100 years didn't allow anyone to stand on their own feet. Everyone was dependent on the state instead, and the state didn't once wither away as Marx hoped it would. The electorate prefers the crassness of materialism to the impossible promise of a leadership that ends up running a form of feudalism.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Sun Mar 09, 2008 22:39

Your refering to soviet style Communism, which clearly had major flaws. The work of formulating a system which can bring genuine democratic control of the economy is ongoing. Im not sure Im understanding you right, but you seem to be saying that Stalinism didnt bring any increase in happiness or justice, so lets just stick with what we have? My appologies if Im misreading you.

by Living in 2008 Sun Mar 09, 2008 23:17

We have some democratic control - acts are passed limiting prices and fostering competition, etc.

And some state ownership of industry - ESB, An Post, Iarnrod, etc.

But not total control, and not total state ownership, because that doesn't work.

Our "democratic" aspect is a bit flakey as well, but that's also much better than industrial conscription. The fact is, most politicians of all parties want to spend money and are not too fussed about generating it.

by Cael Sun Mar 09, 2008 23:27

Yes "democracy" is pretty flaky here all right. Its more of a charade Id say. The limits you mention are to keep things running reasonably smoothly between capitalists, and to try to stop them driving the general population to actual revolt. They are certainly not in place to help the people, and are certainly not there to exert any sort of democratic control over capital. You not really correct in say that no politicians are interested in generating capital,only inspending it. Have a look at Venezeula.

by Living in 2008 Mon Mar 10, 2008 08:23

Better flakey than dead bodies all over.

In the last century trade unions and leftist politicians came to realize at least that pension plans buying shares was a good way to save money for their members, and are constrained by that. And by their own generous salaries and pension plans. But it works, mostly.

Capital is now beamed around between satellites and is beyond control. All you can do is use it as best you can.

Venezuela is generating capital, but only because foreign science and capital developed their oil industry in the first place, and then started consuming it. That sucked in a labour force that remained poor and votes for Chavez. He didn't create anything, but he can use the money wisely - or not.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Mon Mar 10, 2008 19:14

I think you are judging Chavez unfairly. Sure he is in a much better position than a lot of countries because of oil, but his government still has to make wise decisions about how best to use resources. It seems to me that Chavez is leading the way in demonstrating a working socialism for the 21st century. Its based on state/people's investment in the country's major industries and the provision of state/people's
venture capital to small and medium businesses. This leads to a situation where the workers become the end for which capital works, rather than, as in liberal capitalism, the workers remain a means to the unknown ends of autonomous capital.

I would recommend you to read a very good article at the related link titled "A New Program for Democratic Socialism."

by Cael - Sinn Féin Tue Mar 11, 2008 17:53

Just in regard to you comment about better flakey than bodies all over. You thinking this is a direct result of the kind of capitalist disinformation we get bombarded with all the time from the media. But that is the less subtle end of the scale. The usual is that the present status quo is the only thing realistic - the only show in town, as Gerry Adams likes to say. The threat is that if socialist policies - particularly in regard to land pricing, were implemented, there would be a flight of capital out of the country and we would all be left in poverty. This threat does not stand up in Ireland for a number of reasons.

One is that there is already a flight of capital under the current neo-liberal system. Irish residents hold security assets of over 1.2 trillion euro abroad. Nine billion was invested in foreign commercial property deals by Irish residents in 2006 alone.

Another is that, if you take out the public service, land/housing transactions and domestic consumption - which are not transferable out of the country anyway, you are left with the foreign multinationals - which account for over ninety per cent of 26 county exports. Now, the foreign multinationals would be delighted if land prices were controlled in Ireland. Such controls would mean that their workers would not be forced to seek higher wages to pay insane repayments and rents, and would leave Ireland able to compete with Eastern Europe in attracting foreign capital.

by Cael - Sinn Fein Poblachtach Wed Mar 12, 2008 13:36

Basically, in Ireland capital = land. The native Irish economy has not developed beyond that. Most land is inherited - so the usual profile of the "Irish capitalist" is not the successful entrepreneur, scientist or even celeb personality, but the doctor, lawyer or farmer who has inherited some land. The inherent conservative nature of these people means that they will never invest in anything but land and construction. This represents a dead hand on the Irish economy. The mass of people become mere machines supplying an increase of cash capital to the land capital of a tiny group. The Irish economy, under the weight of this dead hand simply cannot generate companies large enough to enter the world market. Only a very few Irish companies have managed this. Not a single new Irish company has been quoted on the US Nasdaq since 1999. Meanwhile, Isreal, with a population similar to Ireland lists seventy companies on the Nasdaq. Today, we face a land crisis as acute as anything Michael Davitt faced. Again, a tiny group of feckless individuals hold the rest of us to ransom. People may vote reps into Leinster House, but this tiny group calls the shots. How long can we tolerate this? Ten years of unprecedented global boom has been squandered down a property drain. Irish manufacturing has an even smaller world market share than it did 15 years ago. The multinationals are looking to cheap land and a young educated workforce in Eastern Europe - and we have nothing to replace them with. Meanwhile, this tiny group of landowners send the money the mortgage payers give them abroad into fantastic property schemes all over the globe. Over twelve thousand billion already.

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 17:01

Sorry, thats twelve hundred billion, not twelve thousand billion

by Living in 2008 Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:00

You are right, but below that tiny group are hundreds of thousands who are better off now in a smaller way. We have tried to get up off our knees in the last few centuries and have made an imperfect start in the 1990s. Political freedom meant nothing without an economic benefit as well.

Take the council estates built by county councils (in these "26 counties") from the 1930s on. When people had the chance to "buy the key" / buy their freehold at a discount, they did. I have neighbours who bought their homes in the 1970s for £1,500 - a lot of money then - and are now sitting on a €350,000 asset. Some will blow the difference in the pub, at the races, on a car, and others are buying flats in Spain to rent out, or travelling the world.

The whole land question moved away from Davitt's ideal nationalisation solution because a poor farmer on 15 acres in about 1900 could not afford to make improvements without borrowing against his asset. The state would have replaced the Anglo-Irish landlords, and the margin in farming wasn't big enough to allow the state to lend money to farmers for improvements. What started as a cash-flow solution has ended up looking like a huge rip-off, but a lot of farmers also went bust between 1900 and 1990.

As for the fat cats, enough is never enough. But in a match if you are winning 10-9 you are not going to slack off until your opponent levels up to 10-10, you are going to try for 11-9.

by Cael - Sinn Fein Thu Mar 13, 2008 14:29

This is the usual argument for modern neo-liberalism. The little man has got a little share of the cake. In reality, it dosnt matter to the average person what the house they own is worth, because most people will just live in it. They wont re-mortgage it to buy flats in Spain. And even if they did , how does this modernise the Irish economy? How does it lessen our dependence on the multi-nationals? Of course, those who are paying the rack rents in the cities, particularly Dublin, and those who are paying mortgages in negative equity would certainly question what neo-liberalism has done for them. For this economy to start working for the Irish people we need to stop pouring money into the accounts of a tiny few landowners, who have no idea what to do with that money - except buy more land abroad. They are bleeding us to death. 1200 billion is some haemorrage.

by Human Wed Mar 19, 2008 18:04

in Ireland every begger looks down on another begger, i think they would rather stay beggers and have it to say that they are better than someone than live in equality where they coudnt look down on anybody.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Sat Mar 22, 2008 15:08

Ive just been reading in an article on the IRBB that the situation is actually worse than I had said. When you leave out the value of principal residences, then 1% of the population "own" 36% of the wealth. 17% of the population live in constant borderline poverty. And some people imagine there is democracy in Ireland??

The article is from IRIS and is called "A nation divided by wealth." It can be read at the related link.

by High King Sun Mar 23, 2008 09:33

"When you leave out the value of principal residences"

To omit the above is a corruption and that fact only highlights the immature nature of a corrupt organisation.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Sun Mar 23, 2008 15:30

High King, a chara, even if you leave in the value of ordinary peoples homes, then you still get a figure of 1% of the population owning 20% of the wealth. 5% of the population own 40% of the wealth. However, most people do not consider their homes to be an "asset" to be used as venture capital. This is the reason why saying that 1% of the population own 36% of the wealth is valid. In fact the figure of 36% vastly underestimates the real situation. In reality this 1% of people own practically all the wealth that is free for use in the generation of more wealth. The rest is spread so thinly amoung the other 96% of the population, that no critical mass of capital can be accumulated, indeed, most of the wealth that comes into their hands must be handed over to the 1% in the form of rents and mortgages. The vast majority of Irish citizens exist merely as money gatherers for this 1%. As I said above, this 1% have no idea what to do with this money except send it abroad to buy foreign land and buildings. The foreign multi-nationals pay money to Irish workers, then the Irish workers pay over that money to the Irish Landlords. Nothing much else happens. A native Irish industrial base remains a vague aspiration. Indeed, it is an aspiration that is often scoffed off as a figment of Eamonn DeValera's imagination.